Post #8,496
9/12/01 2:59:01 AM
|
Do you seriously believ that the US can drop a nuclear ...
weapon and not kill hundreds of thousands of civilians? What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Have you ever read the Geneva Convention particularly the article relating to civilians? Here is 1 quote: "Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
C. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
|
Post #8,524
9/12/01 9:09:20 AM
|
Yes. Because *I* am not an idiot.
However, I believe that you are.
What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Have you ever read the Geneva Convention particularly the article relating to civilians? Here is 1 quote: "Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.
What's the DATE on that?
You dumbass, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were CITIES that were targetting.
I'd tell you to learn to read, but its obvious you can't LEARN.
THERE HAVE BEEN OVER 800 ATOMIC WEAPONS DETONATED IN THE OPEN AIR.
*2* KILLED CIVILLIANS.
Not that facts have ever deterred you from your idiocy.
Addison
|
Post #8,651
9/12/01 3:23:24 PM
|
Really
What does the fact that nuclear weapons were TESTED in the open air have to do with actually using against them a real target? Any target that a nuclear weapon is used against will invariably have civilians nearby.
|
Post #8,663
9/12/01 3:59:20 PM
|
Really????
Any target that a nuclear weapon is used against will invariably have civilians nearby.
There are no military bases anymore?
Please discuss the blast range, deployment, effect and radius of the atomic weaponry in the US arsenal. Or the Israeli arsenal, if you prefer.
Addison
|
Post #8,666
9/12/01 4:05:23 PM
|
Lets' give 'im a break
After all, it doesn't seem that he has any military experience and only knows what is on the kiddie books, the big ICBMs. Tactical nuclear weapons? Wazzz dat?
[link|mailto:jbrabeck@mn.mediaone.net|Joe]
|
Post #8,804
9/13/01 3:24:09 AM
|
And what do you know about tactical nukes???
The US shelved most of their tactical nuclear weapons in the early 1990's . The US only deploys 2 tactical nuclear weapons types today the Tomahawk TLAM-N SLCM (BGM-109A) which has a yield of 200 kilotons and B61 Mod-3,-4,-10 gravity bomb
(tactical) which has a yeild from .3 to 170 kilotons. Considering that these are gravity bombs they will most probably not be used. Therefore we are taking about a 200 kiloton warhead. All this info is from here: [link|http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef|http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef]&f/database/usnukes.html#nonstrat
here is 1 quote:
"The U.S. once deployed the entire panoply of tactical nuclear weapons
(from nuclear artillery and demolition mines to short-range rockets and
even air-to-air missiles). However, nearly all have been removed and are
slated for destruction, largely as a result of President Bush's unilateral
initiative of September 27, 1991. Indeed, the only operational non-strategic
forces are currently the B61 tactical bombs, largely allocated for use
in Europe (and perhaps the TLAM-N SLCMs, though these could arguably be
considered strategic, and are in storage in any case.)"
|
Post #8,847
9/13/01 10:05:18 AM
|
Far more than you.
Trust me, that site is wrong. Well, no, sorry. Not wrong. Very very very incomplete.
Just to make a point: the "Davy Crockett" isn't there.
So are you petitioning Israel to shed themselves of their nukes?
Addison
|
Post #8,936
9/13/01 3:38:05 PM
|
Of course, you are right and everyone is wrong
|
Post #8,941
9/13/01 4:05:30 PM
|
Run Away! Run Away!
At least in your case, yes. I know a HELL OF A LOT more about atomics than you.
I just told you of a SPECIFIC weapon completely ignored on that page. So its hardly complete.
There's 2 man-portable devices I know of. Unmentioned.
The common thing to do when you're shown to be wrong is apologise - or at least fess up.
But I wasn't expecting better from you.
Addison
|
Post #8,751
9/12/01 9:47:35 PM
|
I don't think Bin Laden has his bases in the South Pacific
And that's the only conceivable place on earth where Bluke's point would fail to be valid, and your objection would have any weight whatsoever. Well, let me modify that. Antarctica would also be okay, but only if we evacuate the scientists. And the northern part of Greenland might be civilian-safe as well, if we forcibly remove the Inuits from those latitudes.
Addison, if you keep detonating gems like this, you're going to have to expect to catch a lot of fallout. The prevailing wind of logic keeps carrying your toxic crap back around to you.
The real trouble with idiots is they're all aboslutely positive that they're not idiots. A lot of the time Bluke doesn't make a damn bit of sense, but his track record is still better than yours.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #8,777
9/12/01 10:50:09 PM
|
Just shorten that to "I don't think" and you'll be right.
And that's the only conceivable place on earth where Bluke's point would fail to be valid, and your objection would have any weight whatsoever.
Then answer the question posed to him.
Or shut up, because you're wrong.
Addison, if you keep detonating gems like this, you're going to have to expect to catch a lot of fallout. The prevailing wind of logic keeps carrying your toxic crap back around to you.
Logic? I'd tell you to give me a break, but you're so stupid you can't realise HOW stupid you are.
Want to snipe at me? Fine.
But you now have *2* questions outstanding that you're running from.
Either answer them, or shut the fuck up.
The real trouble with idiots is they're all aboslutely positive that they're not idiots. A lot of the time Bluke doesn't make a damn bit of sense, but his track record is still better than yours.
Then answer the questions posed to you.
Addison
|
